In my Introduction to Literature classes, the students are asked to analyze a short story using their choice of one of the four following approaches: (a) reader response, (b) formalist, (c) historical/biographical, or (d) archetypal. Less than two percent of the students ever choose the archetypal analysis.
The first three analytical approaches have familiar root words: read & respond, formal, and history. Because those words are so common, it is fairly easy to correctly guess the gist of a reader-response, formalist, or historical approach without even studying. But archetype is heard less frequently. Months, perhaps years can pass without hearing archetype pop up in common conversation. Students tend to choose what they are most familiar with, and in a twist of irony, write an archetypical school essay.
An archetype is an original pattern from which copies are made. It comes from the Greek word arkhetypon that means pattern or model.
There are archetypal characters. I will give you a few to get you started:
The rugged individualist - Indiana Jones fits this one.
The knight in shining armor - Sir Lancelot
The mad scientist - Dr. Strangelove
The earth mother - Gaia
You can probably think of others— the ditzy blonde, the Boy Scout, the crone, the jock, the villain.
If someone tells you, "I will be the Woodstock to your Snoopy," and if you understood that to mean he/she will be the cute and faithful companion to your leadership, then you have understood an archetype.
There are archetypal settings: the Garden of Eden, the ice planet Hoth, Mt. Olympus, the River Styx, a deserted isle, also bridges, pathways, and doors. If someone told you that he was getting ready to sail from the Grey Havens, and if you understood what he meant, then you have used archetypal thought, (and you probably know a J.R.R. Tolkien fan as well, at least for a little while yet.)
There are archetypal themes: coming of age, struggle against nature, forbidden love, hope that endures, sacrifice, the phoenix (rising from ashes/dead), etc.
All of these are patterns for other characters, settings, plot devices and stories. It is no accident that the tarot cards used by psychics have archetypes on them; archetypes are common and recurring, so the fortune-teller is statistically bound to hit upon a match now and then. Many dream interpretation books are based on the premise that people dream in archetypes. Soap opera storylines are often archetypal, which makes it seem like the same stories keep repeating. Fairy tales are quintessential in the use of archetypal patterns, plots, and characters. Even though the label "archetype" is heard more in a classroom setting than on the street corner or at the home and hearth (more archetypes, by the way) archetypes are familiar concepts.
Analyzing a story using the archetypal approach is fairly easy. Start by asking what is wanted or needed. The pursuit of this goal often becomes a quest or a journey. It might also play out as a battle or war, often between good and evil. Look for big, universal concepts.
To illustrate how to use the archetypal approach, I used "The Story of an Hour" by Kate Chopin. It is a fascinating short story that was in the course textbook, but it is also out of copyright and easily found in a web search. If you don't want the ending spoiled, read it before continuing. Link to KateChopin.org The Clugston quote below is from the textbook.
Let's consider "The Story of an Hour."
Reader-response — the first response is the emotional connection. Many relate to feeling trapped in a relationship or job and might identify with the housewife. Some might relate to dealing with her chronic illness, while others may feel like they are living the sister's role and always walking on eggshells. It would be possible to identify with the husband or even to relate to the 19th century two-story house, although I have never read a paper written from either of those angles. The reader-response analysis will investigate why that connection was felt.
Formalist — The reader looks at literary elements such as plot, characterization, setting, language style, literary devices, etc. When approached in this manner, sometimes patterns become apparent that are not easily seen when a different technique is used for evaluation.
Historical/Biographical — Consider the gender roles and societal expectations of that era. Learn more about Kate Chopin and read some of her other works for comparison. Many students who read Chopin for the first time in "The Story of an Hour" think the ending is very ambiguous. They are not sure if Mrs. Mallard died from her heart condition, from the shock of seeing her husband's "ghost," from the loss of her expectations of freedom, or if the doctors really were right and she died from joy. Readers who have read some of her other short stories first, such as "The Storm" or "Désirée's Baby" do not have as much doubt. Also, knowing that the story was originally published with the title "The Dream of an Hour" might make a difference in how one interprets the ending.
Archetypal — Clugston (§16.2) says that, "Every archetypal pattern illustrates how a particular human goal is commonly achieved or how a universal human dilemma is resolved." In "The Story of an Hour," there is an archetypal dilemma, the subjugation/liberation of the human spirit, and the human goal of freedom is achieved, although in an unexpected manner. Paragraph 6 reflects the freedom and hope of heaven. "There were patches of blue sky showing here and there through the clouds..." Paragraph 11 reveals that Mrs. Mallard had been confined to a personal hell with a "powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence..." Life and Death and Fate all play out in the story. Nowhere is an archetype more evident than in paragraph 18. "There was a feverish triumph in her eyes, and she carried herself unwittingly like a goddess of Victory." Led to believe that Mr. Mallard was dead, Mrs. Mallard had accepted his sacrifice and experienced a cathartic rebirth of her own spirit. Her deliverance was practically messianic.
So what could this archetypal approach reveal about "The Story of an Hour" that some of the other approaches may have missed? It could be argued that the archetypal approach puts more emphasis on the character of the husband than the other three do. Archetypal analysis circumvents knee-jerk conclusions more effectively than a reader-response. Archetypal critiquing highlights the enslavement of the soul more than a formalist approach. The archetypal approach removes the restrictions of the historical approach and allows an analysis that is larger than marital roles of the late 1800s—the human spirit has always been engaged in a struggle with whomever or whatever will ultimately control it.
Reader-response thinks personal. Archetypal thinks universal.
Formalist dissects and cuts apart. Archetypal does the big picture.
Historical looks at the point of origin. Archetypal patterns are timeless.
No comments:
Post a Comment